Being old had noting to do with it in the case of Griffith-Napoles. Two years later, Griffith would contest Carlos Monzon for the middleweight title, and admittedly he was battered, but that was no disgrace against the greatest middleweight champ of all time. Two years later, he fought Monzon again and lost a very close decision to Carlos. In Monzon's defense, he was defending with a bullet lodged in his arm near his shoulder. Still, Griffith showed great heart, and put up a great effort. A couple of years after that, Emile was robbed in his effort to take the junior middleweight crown from Germany's Eckard Dagge. In the case of the loss to Napole, well, you might just say that Mantequilla had Emile's number that night and was brilliant from what I have read about the fight. He would repeatedly sucker Griffith with a left hand feint, and when Griffith would counter it, Napoles would sharply counter Griffith's counter with lightning punches. He used this tactic to score the fight's only knockdown in the 3rd (I think that was the round). He just stayed away from head to head encounters in close with Griffith and used his brilliant boxing ability to win a comfortable 15 round decision that night. Napoles has to be considered, for the relatively short time he was on top, to be one of the greatest welterweight champions in history, and Griffith was a great one too. He just got outslicked by Mantequilla, and that was also no disgrace.
I agree with tobkhan...Griffith rates higher on my pound for pound list, but among welterweights, I have Napoles higher.
Napoles was better overall. Griffith might have been a tad physically stronger. One thing some folks are forgetting here is the reason why Griffith was a better middleweight than Napoles is that Griffith went up to middle from welter, whereas Napoles went up to welter from lightweight, THEN went up to middle. Griffith was a full fledged middle when he fought Monzon, whereas Napoles was 153.5. Just look at them in the ring. Griffith looks thick and strong against Monzon (although still much smaller looking), but Napoles looks like a little guy and not as muscular as Griffith did. Napoles to me had much better speed and skill than Griffith.
Griffith could make welter easily back then. He didn't have to take the fight if he was going to struggle, with a 4th fight with Benvneuti on the cards. He was badly outclassed by a better welterweight.
I think Griffith in his early/mid 60s prime was slightly better than Napoles. I have Griffith as my all time #4 welter; Napoles #6. I also have Griffith as my #1 fighter of the 60s, with Napoles #7 and #5 for the 70s.
C'mon, you just have to watch the fight to see how bad he looked.There's absolutely no comparison at all with how he looked at middle at that time or how he was at Welter in the early-mid sixties. I'd still take Napoles over the best Griffith by a few points.
